Re: The bluestone debate | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Stonehenge and its Environs 134

Image by Chance

The bluestone debate

mountainman Dec 13, 2008 21:46:31

Replying to Littlestone

Good to see the thread is up and running again. Thought it might have been permanently shut off.......

Re the moving of big stones here and there, I have no problem with that, although in some cases I bet that some of the movement from A to B was achieved by ice, especially on the fringes of the upland areas of the UK. I suspect that very often, ice has not even been considered as a transporting agent.

The point is that just because you believe that Neolithic tribes were capable of transporting stones from A to B, that does not mean they actually did it. According top Steve Burrow, in every single case in Wales where big stones have been used in megalithic settings, the stones have come from the immediate vicinity. In fact, the availability of stone was the prime factor in fixing location. Why should Stonehenge have been any different? If you guys are so determined to maintain the human transport theory, let's see the colour of your evidence. I ain't seen any yet......

Littlestone Dec 13, 2008 22:01:49

Replying to mountainman

Good to see the thread is up and running again. Thought it might have been permanently shut off...

Nah, though as its originator I think I might be entitled to shut it down for 24 hours while tempers cool and it's given the chance to get back on topic ;-)

The point is that just because you believe that Neolithic tribes were capable of transporting stones from A to B, that does not mean they actually did it.

Quite. I'm no expert, and can't back up my belief that the stones were transported by human means but (rightly or wrongly) it's my gut feeling that that's how they got to where they are. Happy to be proved wrong though - that's what this debate is all about :-)

nigelswift Dec 13, 2008 23:44:51

Replying to mountainman

I don't think anyone here has been guilty of being "determined to maintain the human transport theory" if by that is meant "determined to maintain it happened". All I've seen is people saying it remains a feasible theory so far.

The evidence for small megaliths being portable is overwhelming. Not sure why you feel you haven't seen any. How about the fact that huge megaliths are at Stonehenge, that's "evidence" of microlithic portability ain't it?

tiompan Dec 14, 2008 00:05:55

Replying to mountainman

mountainman wrote:

In fact, the availability of stone was the prime factor in fixing location. Why should Stonehenge have been any different?

Whilst I accept the possiblity of the glaciation theory in relation to Stonehenge , that doesn't mean that great efforts didn't take place to move stones long distances . The is plenty proof of that .
Choosing a site like Stonehenge had very likely nothing to do with the availability of stone . A common feature of monumentality is an earlier timber structure that was late rreplaced by stone , in these type of circumstances it is apparent that the site was primary not the availibility of stone . This could also be applicable to Stonehenge due to the earliest presence of wooden features i.e. the timber posts dating from the Mesolithic .